That's basically what Reich is talking about. The people with money (power) make the rules. The label is still "capitalism", but the reality is otherwise.

The US definitely does not have a free market. I would venture a guess that most of the regulations are actually designed to benefit a select few at the top of some company or investment system.

> The people with money (power) make the rules. The label is still "capitalism"

Which makes sense, since that's exactly what the label "capitalism" was created for.

Lots of people have, however, bought into propaganda that capitalism is something else that was created by capitalists after the criticism in which the system was named.

Perhaps it should be mentioned where power and rules came from in other economic systems.

Blood lines (either real, or "Roman-style" (meaning voluntary adoption)), outright whim or military power (either individual, or organized), or otherwise advancement within a rigid hierarchy.

None of those seem to me even remotely preferable over a system where making money means advancement.

Even Marx viewed capitalism as a step forward from its immediate predecessor, which was itself forward from what had come before. Your post would be perhaps relevant in the context of a challenge to capitalism that favored reverting to some previous system rather than continuing to build on the progress made by capitalism relative to previous systems, but such criticisms are, at best, extremely rare even among criticisms of capitalism.

Communism is not "a previous system", and power in communism obviously came from advancement within a rigid hierarchy.

Unless communism/socialism is not what you mean with "continuing to build".